Case Dismissed Against Woman Arrested While Videotaping Police

Originally posted by butcherguy
I suppose it was just a fluke that he decided to pick her out of all the people that were present in their own yards, obstructing just as much
as she was? (which was zero)

I suppose its just a fluke that the lady recording had been arrested on another occasion for the exact same thing? I dont know how many times I can
say this.. Private property, in this case the ladies rom yard, is not a violation of any law since the officer was effecting an arrest.

Since you disagree with that, please show me what you are basing your argument off of.

Originally posted by butcherguy
It didn't have anything to do with the camera in her hands???

Unless your psychic, how do you know what the officers intentions were? If you are going to insinuate, then you should stop chastising people for
making the same insinuation with the lady.

Originally posted by butcherguy
He was scared, not of her, but what she had in her hands.

Please give a time index where the Officer said he was scared. What the officer said was she made him nervous by standing behind him.

Also, someone made a comment about about what occured prior to the recording. Basically how do I know what occured. Someone else pointed out the lady
was targeted because no one else near her was arrested.

Question - How can you guys claim Officers in this thread dont know what occured prior to recording, while making the argument non police do know what
happened?

Originally posted by butcherguy
Now another fluke..... It appears that her Ipod that she was filming with has been stolen from her house. Hmmmm.

Yeah ive seen the paranoid cop haters make the stupid argument that the cops must have stolen it. I find it funny, as well as hypocritical, how its ok
for you guys to just randomly blame people. Seems to contradict your position about the officers actions.

Unless you and the others are saying that only parts of the law should should only apply to people.

My entire position has been that the lady was in fact in violation of the failing to obey lawful command / inteffering with government operations.

It is my position that there was no lawful command from the officer.

Also that she did not interfere with (what I would view as harassment if I were the guy that they pulled over for no reason and handcuffed) the
'traffic stop'.

Question: If four people are outside in their yard watching a traffic stop, is it lawful for a cop to force one of those onlookers to go inside their
house, while the rest are allowed to continue watching? All other things being equal, they are just quietly watching the stop.

I haven't been using the first amendment in the dicussion of this case.

I want to know what law she really broke. Other than making one of four officers feel uncomfortable while she was standing unarmed on her lawn. Mind
you, it was just her that was arrested... none of her other neighbors that were doing the same thing that she was, with the exception of her being the
only one with a camera.

edit on 28-6-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Its been posted already. The charge was interfering with a government function. The criteria in that laws states the actions that must occur to meet
the elements of the crime. In this case, interference is the element. Intefrering / obstructing does not require physical contact. Causing an officer
to divert their attention away from their present issue in order to deal with a secondary, non involed issue, is interfering.

The officer told her to back off. She did not want to comply because she felt she did nothing wrong. After arguing with the officer for about a
minute, you hear the officer tell the lady what she is being arrested for, failing to obey a lawful command.

You guys can argue the command was unlawful all you want, but the law in NY does not agree with you. As I said before, being on private property does
not grant that person immunity from criminal prosecution if they take actions that diverts the officers attention.

Originally posted by butcherguy
Also that she did not interfere with (what I would view as harassment if I were the guy that they pulled over for no reason and handcuffed) the
'traffic stop'.

P;ease provide your source where it states the traffic stop was based on nothing.

Secondly, your first line is exactly what I am talking about. People are making their arguments based off what "you think" should have occured,
instead of basing your argument off of a violation of the law. If you dont agree with a law, thats fine. Just because you dont agree with it though
does not mean people who enforce that law are criminals.

Originally posted by butcherguy
Question: If four people are outside in their yard watching a traffic stop, is it lawful for a cop to force one of those onlookers to go inside their
house, while the rest are allowed to continue watching? All other things being equal, they are just quietly watching the stop.

edit on
28-6-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

And this example above is the other major issue that is confusing people. First off, the cops can approach those people. Its called a voluntary
contact. The people there dont have to speak to the police, and can tell them to kick rocks since they are not investigating any crimes.

If a noise complaint was called in, and the person who called to complain signs a citation, then yes, the officers can take them to jail, ask them to
keep it down, ask them to move it indoors etc. Your rights come to a stop when they interfer with the rights of others.

The example you and others give, using the what if, is non comparable. Reason being the op incident already had the police present because of the
traffic stop (which their presence their was lawful, where as your hypothetical had no reason for the police to be present, so any order could be
tehnicaly unlawful.

. The officer did not step onto her property until he went to arrest her. In that situation, there is no tresspass nor 4th amendment implications
because of the arrest.

I haven't been using the first amendment in the dicussion of this case.

I want to know what law she really broke. Other than making one of four officers feel uncomfortable while she was standing unarmed on her lawn. Mind
you, it was just her that was arrested... none of her other neighbors that were doing the same thing that she was, with the exception of her being the
only one with a camera.

edit on 28-6-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

First off, officers are given a broad range of powers for things that would otherwise be unconstitutional when they fear for their safety (i.e. no
need for miranda warning when fearing officer safety; the entire creation of terry stop and frisks (which is extended to cars too!); no need to knock
and announce when executing a valid search warrant). Then you look at the facts here: this girl was standing behind the officers; she had a very
negative view of the officers; the officers told her they didn't feel safe with her behind them which she ignored; the officers asked her to go inside
which she ignored. Taken altogether she seemed to lack even a modicum of respect for the officers commands. Whether the other arrest was valid is
irrelevant as she had no intimate knowledge of what was going on. The only thing she knew was that an African-American was being arrested outside her
house and she had recently read the paper which talked about this discrimination.

There were two differences between her and everyone else outside:

(1) She was the only one disobeying the officers commands; and
(2) She was the only one who was DIRECTLY behind him and within striking distance.

The point is that the officer at least arguably executed a lawful arrest. The reason this sort of thing is being investigated is because of the heavy
backlash by the people of the United States. Had she moved onto her patio or front porch then maybe the same result would not have happened. But here,
the girl is approximately 20 feet away, disobeying an officers request that she move away because he doesn't feel safe with her behind his back.
Should the officer have used better discretion in making the arrest? yes. But I don't think he was required to.

Yeah ive seen the paranoid cop haters make the stupid argument that the cops must have stolen it. I find it funny

You may have seen it, but I didn't say it.

You find it funny, but I don't find a bit of it funny.

What keeps LEO's in check, if they can arrest you because they aren't comfortable?

Please quit with the fear mongering and stereotyping all law enforcement. Yes, I find it funny because it goes to show that no matter what occurs,
people in these forums will do exactly what they accused the officer of doing.

Making up a reason to justify their actions. Apparently with some the cops do that all the time, and its an evil practice and should be stopped. At
which point they reverse 180 degrees to embrace what they accuse to evil cops of doing.

The example you and others give, using the what if, is non comparable. Reason being the op incident already had the police present because of the
traffic stop (which their presence their was lawful, where as your hypothetical had no reason for the police to be present, so any order could be
tehnicaly unlawful.

No, my hypothetical mentions a traffic stop.... the same as the OP case.

I dont know, I was not present prior to the video recording. Or ask the local media, or contact the Police department to find out why the guy was
stopped.

Originally posted by butcherguy
Why did they search his car?

See answer above

Originally posted by butcherguy
We know that they don't really need a reason, it is just in those rare cases where someone tapes it that he didn't get something planted in his car,
or get tased for resisting.

I really wish you could see just how ridiculous your last statement is. Ill play along for the moment though. Since you are insuating the cops did it,
my theory is the lady and her freidn, who protest foreclosures, planted the Items and removed the Ipod in an effort to frame the officers in hopes of
getting a larger settlement.

See how easy it is to play conspiracy games when we dont have all the facts?

Question: If four people are outside in their yard watching a traffic stop, is it lawful for a cop to force one of those onlookers to go inside
their house, while the rest are allowed to continue watching? All other things being equal, they are just quietly watching the stop.

You have to look at the circumstances. If the stop happens at their curb and one of the on-lookers communicates to the officers an anti-police
attitude which makes an officer uncomfortable having his back turned to them then arguably yes.

Originally posted by butcherguy
It is right there in the part of my post that you quoted.

My bad man, I misread your post. I will say it dends on the situation at hand. People seem to overlook the fact that Police are responsible for not
only the people we are dealing with, but everyone else in the vicinity we arent dealing with.

In your hypothetical, what if the guy on the traffic stop had a weapon, forcing the traffic stop to turn into a hostage situation. I would order those
people on the lawn to move inside and get out of the area. I would not allow them to eat popcorn and drink while watching.

Hypothetical - What do you think would have occured in the OP, if the driver pulled a gun? What about a potential for a driveby shooting? My point is
a traffic stop can go down hill very fast. The last thing we need are people close to the incident. It puts them into the potential line of fire, or
worse they could become a hostage.

Its a different mindset. Police must take all factors into account when doing our job. People who are watching are not going to have the same frame of
mind as the officer, nor will the driver / subjects in the vehicle.

Food for thought that you guys are not seeing as well. When we do a traffic stop, not everyone will pull over right away. I have had people finally
stop at their residence, or a buddies house etc etc etc.

If you were an officer and knew the area you were in is a rough part of town with gang influence you have to ask yourself -

Why is this vehilce passing up safe areas to stop at?
Why did the vehicle drive an extra 2 blocks down the road?
Why did the vehicle stop in front of the residence they did?
Is the residence the drivers house?
Is it where his friends hang out?
Is it possible the guy used a cell phone to let people know he was being stopped and where he was going to park in order to ambush the officer?

As I and others have said there are so mny variables to consider when doing this job, even the most basic distraction could be deadly.

OK, lets take her out of the picture here. How do you explain away the behavior of the rest of the cops that returned to harass her supporters at
their meeting?

You see harrassed, and thats a valid viewpoint for sure. How do you explain to people that you are ok and supportive when the law is used against
police officers, while ignoring those same laws when it comes to citizens?

Every single car that received a citation was illegally parked. Care to explain why, as supporters of the female, that they should be immune from
prosecution when breaking a law?

Do I personally think targeted enforcement occured on that block? Absolutely.
Is that type of action illegal? Absolutely not.
Were the vehicles cited in violation of the law? Absolutely
Were any of the people present who recorded the officers arrested? Nope.

What exactly is your problem in this case if you dont mind me asking? The cars were parked illegally. If they broke the law, should they not be cited
for it? Or are you saying they shold receive preferential treatment?

Call it whatever you want but this was selective enforcement specifically targeting those people in an collective effort to intimidate the people that
were threatening their brethren officer, which is totally unacceptable.

What I find funny are so many of the LEO's that you run into today are big and tough, wear their uniform shirts a little too tight to make their arms
look bigger, and have the jarhead (no offense to marines) haircut and when it comes down to it, they are a bunch of wimps, fearing the little lady in
her pajamas.

If I shot like most of the LEO's that I have had the pleasure of shooting with, I would be scared if I were them. They get paid to shoot on a
range, with ammo supplied, and it doesn't seem to help them. There was an event a few years ago where about 8 policemen shot 33 rounds at a distance
of 25 yards at an armed(but not shooting) suspect running across a parking lot. They managed to hit him once, in the wrist.

My Uncle was the sheriff of the county that I grew up in for 20 years. I knew all of the state police stationed in the county. I have close relatives
that are cops. I still know a lot of cops.

Almost all of them that I have known were or are crooked. They break the law themselves and will frame an individual if they don't like them.

Is the residence the drivers house? Is it where his friends hang out? Is it possible the guy used a cell phone to let people know he was being stopped
and where he was going to park in order to ambush the officer?

How is enforcing the law unacceptable? How is breaking the law acceptable when its a civilian?

Selective enforcement? Sure why not.

We do it all the time when running radar, and just like radar we may stop a car doing 20 over and issue a ticket, and an hour later clock another car
doing 20 over and let the person go with a verbal warning.

Did the vehicles belong to the the support club for Good - Yes
Were they parked on a public street - Yes
Were some of those vehicles in violation of the law by parking more than 12 inches away from the curb - Yes

Its fine if you dont agree with it. The fact remains the vehicles were cited for being in violation of the law. If the people who were ticketed dont
care for it, then they can bring it up in court unless the PA tosses the citations. If they have an issue with the police and their actions, then can
file a complaint with the respective department.

Is the residence the drivers house? Is it where his friends hang out? Is it possible the guy used a cell phone to let people know he was being stopped
and where he was going to park in order to ambush the officer?

You talk about being paranoid.

look at that quote.

OMG, they're going to ambush me!

Like I said, wimps. Now I guess I can call them paranoid wimps.

So if you were a Police officer why would you not ask yourself those questions? Why do you think its paranoid?

Have you ever considered that traffic stops are one of the more deadlier actions we do? I view it as a safety precaution so I dont become complacent
on traffic stops. Assuming the person we stopped is Red Riding Hood coming back from Grandmas can get us killed.

Yeah ive seen the paranoid cop haters make the stupid argument that the cops must have stolen it. I find it funny

You may have seen it, but I didn't say it.

You find it funny, but I don't find a bit of it funny.

What keeps LEO's in check, if they can arrest you because they aren't comfortable?

Please quit with the fear mongering and stereotyping all law enforcement. Yes, I find it funny because it goes to show that no matter what occurs,
people in these forums will do exactly what they accused the officer of doing.

Making up a reason to justify their actions. Apparently with some the cops do that all the time, and its an evil practice and should be stopped. At
which point they reverse 180 degrees to embrace what they accuse to evil cops of doing.

Thats why I find it funny. They undermine thier own argument.

Just wondering which of them you think is getting paid to do this, the civilians or the "officers"?

There was no stereotyping in the post that you just cried about, by the way... what the hell are you even talking about?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.